My point to the PDGA is: if a Pro must be rated below 935 to play MM1, why should a 1,000,000-rated Am be allowed to play MM1?

Players seem to fall in two categories: those that maximize the spin of their interpretation of the non-rules to their own benefit, and those who interpret the essence of the guidelines' intent, to create divisions evenly divided ("protected") by skill level, as well as age, and gender. Believe me, if I were ever to somehow fight my to 935+, I would move right up (a promise I feel safe I will never have to keep, having never achieved it before, and certainly not getting any younger or better ).

By leaving the line blurry, the PDGA creates the perfect divide for a debate, for which this forum would seem the perfect venue.

Comment

You made some very good points, so I did split this off into its own discussing worthy thread.

I hope you don't mind.

Jeeff

Not at all. I have some regrets about the post, and one of them was dirtying up the BSF thread with it, so I am actually glad it was moved, thank you. I didn't get to select the subject (I guess I should have put one in my post), but I think you did fine (though I am depressed by the use of the term "eternal").

The other was the graphic nature of my comparison, exaggerated for effect.

Comment

I thought ratings-based events look more like this....
Player A = 1000 rating
Player B = 900 rating
Course SSA = 1 strokes per 10 ratings points.
PLAY.
Player B gets 10 strokes per round on Player A.
I thought that was what it meant.

Comment

I thought ratings-based events look more like this....
Player A = 1000 rating
Player B = 900 rating
Course SSA = 1 strokes per 10 ratings points.
PLAY.
Player B gets 10 strokes per round on Player A.
I thought that was what it meant.

Comment

To answer the OP, the MM1, MG1, etc were created to "protect" those over 39 from younger Amateurs and from "pros." To get "protection" from those who are better amateurs regardless of age, we have the unisex, non-age based, ratings break amateur divisions MA4 thru MA1 as an option for all amateurs of any age.

Not only would MM2 and MG2 divisions be redundant, it would require the PDGA to add lower tier divisions for every age based division for "fairness" regardless if they barely have enough players in their current Advanced version.

To run a ratings based event, you can just offer Open, MA1, MA2, MA3, MA4 plus Int and even Rec Women if you have enough. Upon getting a "rubber stamp" waiver from the PDGA office, you can require Ams with ratings above 969 to enter Open and they can take any winnings as merch to retain am status. There's no option for male players with ratings below 800 to enter Int or Rec Women. However, there are few men there and they can enter MA4. Or if it's several Juniors, you could just hold their Junior division for those under 800.

ANY Pro player.....with a rating below 970 can play in the Advanced division of an A tier and below.

thank you, and everyone else, for taking the time to respond. as always for me, "correct me if im wrong" was my preface (not to be confused with shove it im my face...). i am merely trying to gain a better understanding of the rules. I go off of the rule book and the interpretation of the rule book as presented to me by trusted and well respected individuals. i feel like through this discussion i have done that, i have read further for myself into the touring pro's page and in the competition manual and have not personally seen anything stating specifically on touring pro restrictions.

Last edited by XandorF; April 6th, 2012, 11:30 AM.
Reason: hope everyone has a great day, especially mat... youve got a hug comin your way next time we see eachother buddy